(01-03-2014, 03:44 AM)armyduck95 Wrote: I know what the rules might say- but I also know what indirect fire looks like up close and what it's real effect is on top of you when everyone is scurrying for the same fold in the ground to hide in.

Since hex scale is 200m2/hex and, let's say, each unit is approx 15-30 people, imagine the density 4 units (2 enemy, 2 yours = 60-120 people) looks like inside a 200m2 hex, in close assault/melee. There might be separate rolls for the effect and trying to account for friendly attempts to control fratricide, but, when all is said and done +1 column shift for 3+ units can certainly account for the lack of cover available to BOTH sides due to BOTH sides adding to the density of the target hex.... hence the presence of the "other" is making it THAT much harder to avoid being hit because the units are in the process of competing for the same cover....

Additionally, anyone who would calls down Indirect Danger Close on his own forces while they are assaulting Deserves to have the +1 column shift if it can apply. It is such an act of desperation it comes as high risk. Fratricide starts to threaten forces with normal caliber arty/mortars (155mm and below) at under 600 meters (3 hexes)... which is why I love PzGs friendly fire rule for adjacent hexes (400m) because that is realistic.

"Definition/Scope: (FM 3-60) Danger close is a term used to represent troops that are within a selected area of requested fire support. The term is included when the target is (rounds will impact) within 600 meters of friendly troops for mortar and artillery, 750 meters for naval guns 5-inch and smaller, and 1,000 meters for naval guns larger than 5-inch. For naval 16-inch ICM, danger close is 2,000 meters."

(01-03-2014, 05:02 AM)richvalle Wrote: The problem with allowing it is that throwing one unit into an assault vs 2 units and then calling in OBA and getting the +1 shift becomes a desirable tactic.

Well... >I< think it would be a problem.

Nice insight though. I can see where you are coming from in a real world way.


rv

(01-03-2014, 03:44 AM)armyduck95 Wrote: I know what the rules might say- but I also know what indirect fire looks like up close and what it's real effect is on top of you when everyone is scurrying for the same fold in the ground to hide in.

Since hex scale is 200m2/hex and, let's say, each unit is approx 15-30 people, imagine the density 4 units (2 enemy, 2 yours = 60-120 people) looks like inside a 200m2 hex, in close assault/melee. There might be separate rolls for the effect and trying to account for friendly attempts to control fratricide, but, when all is said and done +1 column shift for 3+ units can certainly account for the lack of cover available to BOTH sides due to BOTH sides adding to the density of the target hex.... hence the presence of the "other" is making it THAT much harder to avoid being hit because the units are in the process of competing for the same cover....

Additionally, anyone who would calls down Indirect Danger Close on his own forces while they are assaulting Deserves to have the +1 column shift if it can apply. It is such an act of desperation it comes as high risk. Fratricide starts to threaten forces with normal caliber arty/mortars (155mm and below) at under 600 meters (3 hexes)... which is why I love PzGs friendly fire rule for adjacent hexes (400m) because that is realistic.

"Definition/Scope: (FM 3-60) Danger close is a term used to represent troops that are within a selected area of requested fire support. The term is included when the target is (rounds will impact) within 600 meters of friendly troops for mortar and artillery, 750 meters for naval guns 5-inch and smaller, and 1,000 meters for naval guns larger than 5-inch. For naval 16-inch ICM, danger close is 2,000 meters."

(01-03-2014, 07:04 AM)armyduck95 Wrote: I agree, I can see where it would be a desirable tactic, and one that was sometimes used by forces that had little regard for casualties. And hence, why, when there are 3+ units in a hex, both sides suffer for it, a may be rewarded for sending a third counter in, but since he has less forces in the melee (i.e. 1 unit vs. the enemy's 2) he still risks losing big by being subjected to the same +1 modifier with less forces, and potentially (on average) worse chance of winning the assault as well; especially if the defender is dug in/town/woods/ entrenchment with "fire first"... as would be the most likely situation.

(01-03-2014, 05:02 AM)richvalle Wrote: The problem with allowing it is that throwing one unit into an assault vs 2 units and then calling in OBA and getting the +1 shift becomes a desirable tactic.

Well... >I< think it would be a problem.

Nice insight though. I can see where you are coming from in a real world way.


rv

(01-03-2014, 03:44 AM)armyduck95 Wrote: I know what the rules might say- but I also know what indirect fire looks like up close and what it's real effect is on top of you when everyone is scurrying for the same fold in the ground to hide in.

Since hex scale is 200m2/hex and, let's say, each unit is approx 15-30 people, imagine the density 4 units (2 enemy, 2 yours = 60-120 people) looks like inside a 200m2 hex, in close assault/melee. There might be separate rolls for the effect and trying to account for friendly attempts to control fratricide, but, when all is said and done +1 column shift for 3+ units can certainly account for the lack of cover available to BOTH sides due to BOTH sides adding to the density of the target hex.... hence the presence of the "other" is making it THAT much harder to avoid being hit because the units are in the process of competing for the same cover....

Additionally, anyone who would calls down Indirect Danger Close on his own forces while they are assaulting Deserves to have the +1 column shift if it can apply. It is such an act of desperation it comes as high risk. Fratricide starts to threaten forces with normal caliber arty/mortars (155mm and below) at under 600 meters (3 hexes)... which is why I love PzGs friendly fire rule for adjacent hexes (400m) because that is realistic.

"Definition/Scope: (FM 3-60) Danger close is a term used to represent troops that are within a selected area of requested fire support. The term is included when the target is (rounds will impact) within 600 meters of friendly troops for mortar and artillery, 750 meters for naval guns 5-inch and smaller, and 1,000 meters for naval guns larger than 5-inch. For naval 16-inch ICM, danger close is 2,000 meters."

(01-10-2014, 04:35 AM)richvalle Wrote: Hey Armyduck95... meant to ask you this a while ago but been busy.

When you say "I agree, I can see where it would be a desirable tactic, and one that was sometimes used by forces that had little regard for casualties. " who and how do you mean?

I know the North Vietnamese had a 'fight by the belt' concept where they wanted to get in close to the Americans and try to reduce the Art/Air strikes they would suffer.

I could see the Russians or the Japanese with 'human wave/bansai' attacks. In those cases I'd see it more as a way to close the distance quickly and get into close combat vs a way to deny the defender hiding spots.

Thanks!

rv